Warning: Missing argument 2 for wpdb::prepare(), called in /home4/scottmac/public_html/projectgroundswell.com/wp-content/plugins/category-icons/category_icons.php on line 1339 and defined in /home4/scottmac/public_html/projectgroundswell.com/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1147
Climate ChangeVideo

Climate Solutions: The Story of Cap-and-Trade

Interested in understanding more about what climate solutions are out there? Need a quick primer on Cap-and-Trade? This short video from Clean Energy Works offers an overview of some of the major goals and objectives associated with the legislation. Passing energy and climate legislation is essential if there is going to be any sort of comprehensive international agreement to address global warming and climate change.

Story of Cap-and-Trade from Clean Energy Works on Vimeo.

Is cap-and-trade our best option? (See arguments for cap-and-trade vs. a carbon tax.) Proponents of the approach make the case that it leverages market based mechanisms to curtail emissions, and is more effective in limiting emissions to a specific threshold than a flat carbon tax, which is even more politically unpopular. However, in a recent op-ed to the NY Times, James Hansen, the famous climatologist, argues against it, while Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate in economics, defends cap-and-trade in a response on his blog. For an in-depth review, see this 2009 assessment of U.S. cap-and-trade proposals by researchers at MIT. For a very brief overview of some of the pros and cons, see below.

Some of the other advantages of cap-and-trade include:

Would global warming be reduced through cap and trade legislation? (Image source: wikipedia)

Source: wikipedia

  • Leverages economic instruments and incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Would stimulate innovation toward less carbon intensive technologies.
  • Would stimulate carbon trading and allow an entire industry based on the reduction of carbon emissions to take root.
  • Would allow for US polluters to purchase forestry offsets and tap into other international projects to reduce emissions.

Some potential disadvantages:

  • Depending on the “cap” limit on emissions that is set, the extent to which a price on carbon stimulates trading and actually reduces emissions may fluctuate (eg, if the cap is too high it might hurt businesses, and if is too low there won’t be an incentive to comply.)
  • In the view of some, it may not be as effective as a flat carbon tax in terms of actually reducing emissions — the ultimate goal. A flat carbon tax applied on a economy-wide scale is much less politically viable, however.
  • If large emitters are still permitted to emit (by purchasing forestry offsets, for example), and the penalties for doing so are not stringent enough, actual emission reductions will not be significant enough to avoid dangerous climatic changes.

There are a number of factors that would impact the domestic success of cap-and-trade, including the stringency of foreign programs, how well U.S. policies would mesh with these foreign programs, and the availability of alternatives to current technologies and energy sources as firms look away from conventional carbon intensive options. Regardless, if we are to avoid dangerous rises in global temperature, we must take steps toward reducing emissions, and cap-and-trade appears to be the most palatable political option that is on the table here in the United States.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Scott MacKenzie

Scott works at the Monterey Bay Aquarium where he is the online community manager for Climate Interpreter, an online community focusing on climate change communication and education collaboration.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Comments
3 Responses to “Climate Solutions: The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
  1. Jem Cooper says:

    The world will never be able to agree how to share the pain of cutting emissions or the revenue from cap and trade or carbon taxes. Carbon dioxide spreads globally and needs a global arrangement to sort it. Acid rain was much easier because the problem was local to the emission, so each country could adopt its own solution. Our leaders need to consider alternatives with an open mind instead going round the same unproductive loop over and over again. I have a simple, effective and potentially popular solution.

    In a recent Times Online live debate see
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/live-debate-after-copenhagen-where-to-now-for-the-climate-debate.html
    85% voted that “Fossil fuel companies should be obliged to sequester an increasing fraction of the carbon content of the products they sell to avoid dangerous climate change”. For details on why this proposal would be easier for all countries to agree to than cap and trade or carbon tax, how it would encourage energy saving, renewables and nuclear, how it would be implemented and how it would stop global warming see my blog at http://jemsavestheplanet.blogspot.com/

  2. Mickey says:

    global warming is a myth!

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] This tax seems to be the only plan anyone is looking at.  But are there any alternative  solutions to mitigating the escalation of climate change? [...]



Leave A Comment

Our Mission

We at Project Groundswell seek to provide readers with the perspective and resources necessary to understand the implications of our changing global environment. We will highlight tangible solutions, and emphasize action being taken to advance the sustainable use of the planet’s resources, and responsible stewardship of its natural systems.

Respect

The Project Groundswell content is distributed via the Wordpress platform.

The content, code, and design on this website are © 2012. All rights are reserved and deserved.

Site design and build by Basic.